25 Jan 2020 21:24:23 I haven't listened to the post above this. I will try to later (probably fall asleep to it) .
These are the same "proofs" used for flat earth. I haven't seen any counter arguments disproving these experiments, yet. Are there any? .
They (the experiments) seem to prove no Earth movement. This still has no preference towards a flat or globe Earth. I still struggle with Airey's failure. I understand what is being said, it's not something I know about so thinking and visualising multiple elements at once, for me, takes time for me to make an opinion, so I know it isn't a parrot-effect.
The problem for me, is that everyone seems to ignore (but still use as proof for a globe) is all the NASA photoshop Earth pictures. I mean build a camera/ satellite/ (balloon? ) specifically for that purpose, a full view of the amazing planet, Earth. I just can't understand why they haven't. unless there is some sort of barrier/ waters/ radiation that is preventing it.
25 Jan 2020 21:02:07 Still processing, Ed. An already complex subject twisted on its head. I don't want to portray myself as something I don't want to be, by questioning something that isn't supposed to be questioned. Which is how things appear to be. I don't know what to think really. Shocked.
If there is something in particular from WW2 or the documentary you would like me to share my opinion on, I will do my best to oblige.
They are all recorded from a moving car going in an opposite direction from a handheld camera. Say the car is going at 50 - 60 mph, and the aircraft in the opposite direction is travelling at about 140kts, it would be easy to think the aircraft is static even though it's moving.
As for the single piston towing the banner, that proves to me what fakery this is. It's a poster or photo and they are trying to convince the viewer that it is real.
It is technically possible (and has been done many times) for a small aircraft to go backwards if the indicated airspeed is less than the the oncoming windspeed. Banner towing pilots would never go up in those type of conditions though. But that's not what's going on here. This whole video is just taking the you know what.
24 Jan 2020 18:16:35 So, I still don't know where I sit so trying to prove either way.
Used to listen to this Michelle Thaller "scientist", but won't hold what she says with any weight anymore.
Starts the argument with, "You have all the beautiful pictures of the Earth". Which NASA has, said are photoshopped. But the bit that made me go WTF?!?, was just after 6 mins.
"So the gas right around the Earth is actually millions of degrees hot. That's actually true"
Maybe she's getting confused with the Sun? . Oh no wait, it's a proof the Earth is a globe video.
3 proofs that debunk flat-Earth theory | NASA's Michelle Thaller
24 Jan 2020 15:39:36 I thought it would be a lot harder passing behind foreground objects, but maybe not? . I not that familiar with AAA or programs like that. So I don't know.
24 Jan 2020 13:17:46 Just for my inner peace. I didn't say it WAS fake. But agreed if it is, really well done. And expensive. Why waste that sort of money?
24 Jan 2020 12:55:30 An intriguing one this, Ed. Does really look like they are hardly moving.
Could this have been faked? Possible, but expensive due to foreground running across view of plane. Less likely as a lot of seemingly individual cases of seeing this independently and on different occasions. And why would you fake so many different occasions (expense again) .
Could it be an optical illusion? Possible. But for a plane to appear stationary? at a few hundred feet? hmmm. The inside view of this happening on a high altitude flight is probably more likely to come across as an illusion, as air speed is not related to the Earth. It is the speed of air passing across/ over the wings.
But I thought these planes travel between 350-550mph, so you would need the equivalent windspeed in the opposite direction the plane is travelling to be at the planes speed. 350-550 mph jet stream I doubt it! . (without delving a little more, I am not sure how altitude effects airspeed as the air is thinner. My thinking right now is that it just allows the plane to travel faster as less resistance. The air still travels ( although less air as thinner) across the wings the same speed.
The A380 flights from Dubai to London fly directly over my house multiple times a day. They always appear slow and lethargic in the sky, and seem to fly oddly (not how you would expect, maybe because of there size?! ) but I haven't witnessed anything like what this video shows. And I do make a point of watching for odd things happening in the sky. Seen a few, but not relevant to this thread.
Is it possible, plane engineers are mistaking a mix of liquid helium and avgas as just avgas? . I know helium is only light as a gas, not a liquid, but releasing a pressurised gas (liquid) into a space where it would not be pressurised (just release the equivalent volume of uncompressed gas as a liquid), it would still become a float-able gas mixed with avgas.
I am just spit-balling to take my mind off my potentially anger inducing day. Thanks.
23 Jan 2020 21:19:09 I'm going to look in to this more. As I don't know enough about the subject to think it through properly. (I don't think being 4 hours in to " the greatest story never told" is helping my mental state right now. )
I know avgas is denser at colder temperatures maybe this could somehow effect the amount used?
This being said, Though. Prices for anything are set as high as they can in relation to what people are willing to pay. And I doubt anything would stand up in a court of law even if they were using no fuel.
23 Jan 2020 17:16:39 Not all of the fuel is stored in the wings. There are 6 other tanks in the main body of the A380 not including the wing tanks.
I get that the video was displaying it was too much fuel to fit, it was just his calculations seemed weird.
I don't remember him mentioning the other fuel tanks either?
I'm not writing off his theory. Just figuring out the if he is right.
Always thought Tesla's turbine has been very underused considering, on his deathbed, Tesla said it was his favourite invention. Maybe because it doesn't run on million year old squashed plant juice?
23 Jan 2020 16:14:26 It possible. I was trying to do some calculations on what he was saying and I am not sure what he was saying was right. Was just going to run through some bit again and now its gone, so I guess I won't be sure, now.
The answer is 7.727 . As in the Olympic pool holds 7.727 times the amount of fuel on board an A380. Not seven thousand seven hundred and twenty seven litres.
Or did I miss something here?
I did get to figure out that the pumps work out to be around 1000 litres a minute. Fuelling time (standard) is about 2 hours, so 120,000 litres of fuel. Not a full tank, but it depends on the destination. Full tank is about 8,500 miles. and would weight about 90,000kg I think (6lb per gallon is the standard pilots use).
It would have been nice to re-watch and go over things again.
22 Jan 2020 22:22:50 I didn't know that exact fact, Rian. But have been aware of the conspiracies of him not dying where and when it was portrayed. It amazing how many CIA investigations there, were trying to track him down, all the way into the 1970's.
I did watch a particularly well put together MS documentary recently called "Hunting Hitler". It was actually backed up by facts and very thorough investigative research rather than jumping to amazingly speculative conclusions from nowhere, like say " Ancient Aliens".
After 3 seasons they tracked him down to being in Argentina. It's worth a watch. Maybe he was on his way to an unknown region in Antarctica?
22 Jan 2020 22:06:24 It boggles the mind that original data from arguably the most amazing achievement the human race has ever accomplished, has been erased from history. Either lost of written over. You would imagine it being under lock and key somewhere safe. Maybe Mr Kubrick had it stashed somewhere?
22 Jan 2020 21:15:54 I haven't seen any conspiracy-type videos on this at all that I can remember. I am however aware of some visual effects of light interacting with particles either larger or smaller than the wavelength of the light called "Mie" and "Rayleigh" scattering. I think its "Mie scattering" that has an explanation. This doesn't really fit this site though. But I will add, it doesn't mean the Moon is where we are told it is. And the distance we are told is measure using mirrors put on the Moon by astronauts from the apollo missions who travelled through the Van Allen belts even though we still don't have the tech to take a human past 350 miles of low Earth orbit. If only we had the tech from back then.
22 Jan 2020 20:54:56 To me, the clouds immediately around the Moon appear extremely bright, but the clouds not too far away appear extremely dark. If the Moon was 325,000 miles away, we wouldn't see such a contrast. In fact the clouds immediately around the Moon wouldn't be that bright.
But it's all subjective and we probably can't devise an experiment, because all the World can't agree on the Moon's luminosity or agree on the fall off of luminosity the further away from the clouds the Moon is, can't agree on the size of the Moon and can't agree on how far away the Moon is from the clouds. Also there are different clouds at different heights from the Earth.
Southern Monkey · 25 Jan 2020 20:39
